On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 16:29 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
quoted text
> Do we need `offset' at all?

Looks like no.

I wonder if there's a good argument for adding a pte_offset_val() which
would let us do:

pteval = pte_offset_val(pmd, addr);

and shrink the map/unmap window and overhead here and possibly
elsewhere?

Anyway, updated but still untested patch now with revealing comment:

diff -r 5595adaea70f fs/proc/task_mmu.c
--- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c	Thu Jan 17 13:26:54 2008 -0600
+++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c	Thu Jan 17 18:45:57 2008 -0600
@@ -584,18 +585,19 @@
 	pte_t *pte;
 	int err = 0;
 
-	pte = pte_offset_map(pmd, addr);
-	for (; addr != end; pte++, addr += PAGE_SIZE) {
+	for (; addr != end; addr += PAGE_SIZE) {
 		u64 pfn = PM_NOT_PRESENT;
+		pte = pte_offset_map(pmd, addr);
 		if (is_swap_pte(*pte))
 			pfn = swap_pte_to_pagemap_entry(*pte);
 		else if (pte_present(*pte))
 			pfn = pte_pfn(*pte);
+		/* unmap so we're not in atomic when we copy to userspace */
+		pte_unmap(pte);
 		err = add_to_pagemap(addr, pfn, pm);
 		if (err)
 			return err;
 	}
-	pte_unmap(pte - 1);
 
 	cond_resched();
 


-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/